WON !! Richard Durkin v HFC / PC World supreme court judgment 26/03/14

[mystery1]

Re: Richard Durkin supreme court help needed

Excellent news.

Good luck.

M1

[Rico]

Re: Richard Durkin supreme court help needed

Funding secured. Law Society trust fund was the right answer.

Thanks for your help. Expect some good news next year.

Rico

[Rico]

Re: Richard Durkin supreme court help needed

PPI segment of the repayments.

Proof that the PPI scam dates back to the previous century.

Even more blatant fraud though in processing this contract without a sale.

Re: Richard Durkin supreme court help needed

Hi

Yes that caught my eye also, however i think the PPI segment of the repayments mentioned in the contract accounts for the apparent discrepancy.

D

[Sparkie1723]

Re: Richard Durkin supreme court help needed

Tell me to go away if I am poking my nose in but reading Ricos agreement I would say that he should consider this also if he hasn't allready. On the figures shown on the agreement he should have been paying £51.75. If the deal had gone through. Don't forget I ramble a lot and a lot of what I say should be taken with a pinch of salt
Sparkie
Loan Amount £1,449.00
Monthly payment £54.37
No of months 48

Gives an APR of 32.58% in my calculations

The tolerance allowable for an APR is 0.1%.
Its my view that the APR is misstated and the agreement would be/should be Declared Void under Regina V Kettering Magistrates Court and a criminal offence

4 Apr 2000 Admn Schiemann LJ, Douglas Brown J	Consumer, Crime, Financial Services	1 Cites
A statement of an APR in the sale of a financial services product remained a price indication, and, if it was miscalculated, that was a misleading price indication, and criminal, despite provisions in the Consumer Credit legislation. What was given was a price under the contract: "The total amount payable under the contract which can properly be described as the price, should be arrived at by reference to the APR.

[MIKE770]

Re: Richard Durkin supreme court help needed

Currys & PC World chap tried to tell me it was the Law to Explain to O.H. that extra insurance for a laptop may be needed. Rubbish I said.

[Rico]

Re: Richard Durkin supreme court help needed

PC World act as HFC agents to defraud and blackmail the public. They're both being sued but it's HFC that are still trying to buy themselves off the hook.

[jax50]

Re: Richard Durkin supreme court help needed

Phew, an incredible sequence of events I have just read through. I had no prior knowledge of any of this. The plain daftness is PC World could and should have refunded the money received from HFC through the agreement as they benefited from receiving the cash without actually parting with the goods. Do they still hold that money ? I can see HFC have an arguement because they would say a contract exists, which under the definition of a contract is that it is equal on both sides (they paid out money and will receive payments + interest). PC World however have an 'unequal contract' , having received money and not parted with any goods, as does Rico , paying for something he has not received.

I wonder why PC World didn't immediately refund the money from HFC straight away knowing the goods had been returned, under prior agreement ? isn't that where the fault lies ?

I'm no expert at all, but why isn't D suing PC World . If this had been paid for by credit card, you can be sure PC World would be chased for a refund by the Credit card Company.

[Rico]

Re: Richard Durkin supreme court help needed

I wish I had the money in my back pocket.

I know this may be a ridiculous question but sometimes it pays to ask the "daft laddie" question. Do you have any legal cover on your home insurance?

No. Wasn't an option in 1996. Do now but it doesn't cover issues dating back to the previous century.

It seems I'll just have to hope that Frances can arrange some sort of credit with the printers directly and that the court can be persuaded to allow an exemption. I'll ask the MP if he can assist. He hasn't been much use to date.

Cheers,

Rico.

[Magrew]

Re: Richard Durkin supreme court help needed

I wish I had the money in my back pocket.

I know this may be a ridiculous question but sometimes it pays to ask the "daft laddie" question. Do you have any legal cover on your home insurance?

[Rico]

Re: Richard Durkin supreme court help needed

Rico,

Is the case funded yet?

No. Papers due to be printed next month if I can get funds/credit (pretty difficult with a default!)

If we get them printed OK, there's still the court fee to overcome.

So no. Very frustrating being wrongfully blacklisted and not being able to borrow more money to get off it!

Rico.

[Magrew]

Re: Richard Durkin supreme court help needed

Rico,

Is the case funded yet?

[Rico]

Fraudulently processed false account.

Here's the single "contract", fraudulently processed to create the false account

Rico.

[Magrew]

Re: Richard Durkin supreme court help needed

I have been on my hols, so I only got back to this tonight.

With Andrew Smith onboard you have a very formidable gentleman. If he is working pro-bono then there must be some very compelling facts (some of which you have highlighted) that leads him to believe there is a case to be answered.

http://www.compasschambers.com/advocates-cv.asp?id=9

Looks like Davyb has spotted the issue very accurately again.

You have a good team here.

[Rico]

Re: Richard Durkin supreme court help needed

I think like most of us he would presume that the credit agreement would not be processed till the next day, when it was certain the sale was properly made made.

Being properly made is a requirement of section 56 the judge said;

"By way of example such circumstances might arise when misrepresentation on the part of the supplier, during antecedent negotiations of the contract of sale, on his own behalf, and as agent for the creditor (cf section 56(1) and (2)), was held to have induced both the contract of sale and the credit agreement. However in that situation the debtor would not require to rely on the provisions of section 75(1) in seeking rescission of his credit agreement with the creditor. In the present action, the sole basis on which the appellant has sought rescission of the credit agreement involves reliance on section 75(1). No case of misrepresentation on the part of the first respondents, or by an employee of the first respondents, as agent of the second respondents was advanced at proof or before us. On our construction of section 75(1) the case advanced by the appellant was not open to him."

If this was held the agreement would be void.
Pretty heavy hint there, otherwise it must be down to the shop for completing the sale and processing the agreement prematurely in my opinion.

D

Heavy hint indeed. Lower court interpreted Section 75 the way it's always been interpreted these past 30 years, knowing from the facts and evidence that the bank has acted in a crminal and malicious manner.

Misrepresentation wes advanced at proof in the form of the Record backed up with evidence.

I'm away visiting outlaws at the moment.

Upon my return, I'll try and post the one document headed with PC World & HFC Bank and signed with a single post-dated signature. Obvious fraud. Agreement processed without a sale. False account created.

One of the judges in Edinburgh was clearly on our side. The Lord President wasn't, despite saying that defaults are a formidable weapon. The third didn't even have a clue what the appeal was about - simple maths.

The Scottish government are trying to do away with the UK Supreme Court. They are happy with the injustices being dished out by the highest court! It stinks.

Andrew Smith QC is the man that can. He has taken the case on pro bono. He's assisted by Richard Pugh.

Frances McCartney is coordinating the appeal.

It's so frustratingly simple yet submissions and evidence have taken over 2 weeks including discussing matters in China!

The bank is throwing so much mud at this, that judges have had difficulty seeing what they're desperately trying to cover up.

I hope criminal charges will follow.

Cheers for now,

Rico.